Re: [PATCH v8 04/15] x86: Secure Launch Resource Table header file

Andrew Cooper
2024-02-22T02:03:21Z

On 15/02/2024 8:08 am, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 23:31, Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@oracle.com> wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Primary SLR Table Header

I know it's just a comment, but SLR ought to be written in longhand here.

>> + */
>> +struct slr_table {
>> + u32 magic;
>> + u16 revision;
>> + u16 architecture;
>> + u32 size;
>> + u32 max_size;
>> + /* entries[] */
>> +} __packed;
> Packing this struct has no effect on the layout so better drop the
> __packed here. If this table is part of a structure that can appear
> misaligned in memory, better to pack the outer struct or deal with it
> there in another way.

As you note, __packed does two things not one.

The consumer of the random integer that is expected to be a pointer to a
struct lsr_table doesn't know whether it was invoked by a 16bit
bootloader or a 32bit bootloader, and this really does make a difference
for an ABI described only in C.

Then again, we're holding off on setting the spec in stone until there's
an agreement in principle, so we could retrofit a statement about the
expected alignment of this structure in memory.

The sane choices are either 8b alignment (there are uint64_t's in
entires[], but I also see there are some misaligned uint64_t's too,
which is dull), or using the good old x86 fallback or paragraph
alignment just in case we really want to extend it with a uint128_t in
future.

Thoughts?

~Andrew